The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Speedy delete verbatim re-creation of previously deleted content. Just zis Guy you know? 20:07, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This article was nominated for speedy deletion, which has been contested. I'm putting it up for AfD instead. No vote. Aecis ^{Mr. Mojo risin'} 11:53, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose The democratic peace theory is a very prominent although controversial theory in political science. The contents of this article was moved to an article named Why Rummel is always right. This is obviously a POV name that is not allowed and that article was correctly deleted. However, this referenced article should remain. Any problems should be corrected by discussion and editing, not deleting. Ultramarine 12:09, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If Democratic peace theory (Specific historic examples) is about the democratic peace theory, can't the contents of this article be moved there? Aecis ^{Mr. Mojo risin'} 12:34, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This article describes the possible wars between liberal democracies in more detail. The main article is already very long. It discusses many other aspects like statistical significance and correlation is not causation. Also, the main article looks at other claims like fewer lesser conflicts between democracies and fewer civil wars. The main article now has very little of the information that is in this subarticle. In addition, this subarticle should be greatly expanded with more conflicts and sources from the literature.Ultramarine 12:43, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is a PoV fork of Democratic peace theory, and Ultramarine has proposed this precise content for inclusion on its Talk page. Septentrionalis 17:32, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a POV fork. The title is perfectly neutral. Add your own referenced arguments if there is any.Ultramarine 18:18, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. If it is too much detail for the main article, it probably shouldn't be here. This article seems to be mainly a discussion defending the theory from particular criticisms. JPD (talk) 12:54, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Should not then referenced counter-arguments be added rather than deleting all the current referenced contents?Ultramarine 13:00, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I see no reason why there can't be the main Democratic Peace article and then articles about specific aspects of it. This is the case with a lot of cultural articles and sporting event articles. This article and the Democratic Peace article could both do with an NPOV comb. MLA 14:54, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete per criterion G4; verbal recreation of deleted article Why Rummel is always right (non-admins can see a copy of the deleted article in userspace here). See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Why Rummel is always right, the previous deletion decision; I was the only vote to keep. Since my reasons no longer apply, we should stick with policy.Septentrionalis 17:32, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This article remains advocacy, drawn from a narrow range of extreme sources within the subject, and backed up by further PoV (for example, a description of Imperial Germany, drawn from an American book written in support of WWI and published in 1917). Useless for any purpose. Since its complete text can be found in Talk:Democratic peace theory, it is not needed to write a real article on Rummel or Weart; and a real article on wars between democracies would have to be completely rewritten under a less cumbrous title anyway. It could do worse than to start from this website, which discusses more wars, and actually presents arguments on both sides. Septentrionalis 17:32, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Huh? There is no book from 1917 or anything similar to what you state in the sources. White's personal website presents his opinions without any references. However, I do encourage you to add more referenced arguments to the article. This is a controversial area with many different views. However, you have presented no reason for deleting the article. Could you please explain why you previously moved the contents to an article called Why Rummel is always right. This seems to violate Wikipedia:Don't disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. Ultramarine 17:47, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • James W. Gerard: My Four Years in Germany. Hodder and Stoughton; 1917 University library catalog listing Septentrionalis 17:54, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Ok, that book by the American ambassador was only used as a source for that there was a vote of no confidence in 1913 that the Chancellor ignored. Again, I urge you to add your own referenced statements to the article and discuss objections on the talk page. Renaming articles and deleting them should not be used as part of content disputes. Please edit and discuss as other editors do when they have objections to the contents.Ultramarine 18:12, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • • This exact text is being discussed under Talk;DPT. Ultramarine knows this; he started the discussion. Septentrionalis 18:30, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
              • Do not be ridiculous. That is a completely different text.Ultramarine 18:33, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • (fuller width) See the text being discussed under Talk:Democratic_peace_theory#Possible_exceptions_to_no_wars_between_liberal_democracies. Looks like a cut and paste to me. Septentrionalis 19:29, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Different sources, different and more examples, different arguments, and different format. I am discussing that text on the talk page in order to try to reach an agreement so situations like this can hopefully be avoided.Ultramarine 19:34, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NOR. Stifle 18:22, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, as POV fork, recreated material, excessive detail, etc.--Sean Black ^(talk) 20:00, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.